Cited by

(); d 502, 507 (Minn. 2022) (noting that a party “ma[kes] a prima facie case by alleging facts that, if true, would provide sufficient grounds for [the relief sought]”).

“[T]he criteria for a provisional discharge are more lenient than the criteria for a [full] discharge.”

At a first-phase hearing on a petition for discharge or for provisional discharge, the petitioner bears the burden of production to “present[] a prima facie case with competent evidence to show that the person is entitled to the requested relief.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he criteria for a provisional discharge are more lenient than the criteria for a [full] discharge.” -36 (Minn. App. 2014).

1 (2020); 5 (Minn. App. 2014).

2(d); Larson v. Jesson , d 531, 535 (Minn. App. 2014).

5 (2020); (stating the standard of review from decisions of the appeal panel).

See also Larson v. Jesson , (describing the two-phase hearing process before the CAP).

P. 41.02(b), the appropriate standard of appellate review is de novo.”

In applying that standard, we “examin[e] the re cord to determine whet her the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panel[’]s findings.” Larson v. Jesson , (quotations omitted).

the CAP, the Minn esota Supreme Court has made it clear that “the committed person bears the burden of going forward with the evidence, which means presenting a prima facie case with competent ev idence to show that the person is entitled to the requested relief.” Coker v. Jesson , 5-86 (Minn. 2013) (quotations, citations, and footnote omitted)

See Larson v. Jesso n, (“After the [petitioner] has completed the presentation of evidence, the commissioner may move to dismiss the petition under Minn. R. Civ.

See Larson v. Jesson , d 531, 535 (Minn. App. 2014) (“After the [petitioner] has completed the presentation of evidence, the commissioner may move to dismiss the petition under Minn. R. Civ.

On appeal of a panel’s dismissal of a petition under rule 41.02(b), “the appropriate standard of appellate review is de novo.” (explaining that “the standards for directing a verdict under Minn. R. Civ.

D E C I S I O N When this court reviews the d enial of a transfer petition, we evaluate the panel’s decision “for clear error, examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings and not weighing the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” (quotations omitted).

-35 (Minn. App. 2014) (stating that “the committed person may be provisionally discharged only if the [commitment] appeal panel determines that the committed person is capable of making an acceptable adjustment to open society” under Minn. Stat. § 253D.30, subd.

This court reviews decisions of the panel “for clear error, examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings and not weighing the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” (quotations omitted).

Generally, this court reviews decisions by a judicial appeal panel for clear error, “examin[ing] the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings” and not “weigh[ing] the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” ( (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Nov.

Foster v. Jesson , , 549 (Minn. App. 2014) (citation omitted); see Larson v. Jesson , , 534 (Minn. App. 2014) (same).

D E C I S I O N “This court reviews a judicial appeal panel’s decision for clear error, examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings.” Matter of Civil Commitment of Kropp , review denied (June 20, 2017) ( (M inn.

This court applies a de novo standard of review to a judicial appeal panel’s grant of a rule 41.02(b) motion to dismiss, and “‘examine[s] the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings.’” ( (quotation omitted)).

We review a judicial appeal panel’s decision for clear error, “examining the record to determine whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panel’s findings and not weighing the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” (quotations omitted).

’” ( (quotation omitted)).

d 531, 534 (Minn. App. 2014).